The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1887-01-06

1hE DAnpNEI AS n
my observation, is not one of high respect for
the efficiency of the bayonet / will admit,
also, that my own objection to the bayonet is
based mainly on the great Inconvenience it is
TO the soldier in carrying it. The weight OF
the bayonet is not great still it is something.
If the General will invent a practical bayonet,
whose habitual place of carriage is the gun
ITSELF some of my objections will fall. Still,
this place should hardly be at the muzzle, as
that would give the piece bad balance. Could
il be concealed in the butt?
The General mildly hints that volunteer
soldier is not a competent judge of the eff
cheney of the bayonet. Why not? The final
test of any weapon must be the result of its
use, and volunteer can see whether bayonets
are actually used in battle as well as Regular
soldier or officer. Tradition certainly does not
have the power over him that it has over the
Regular officer.
witnessed. early in the war; the beautiful
drill of the Zouave regiments and saw the fear
full execution done among imaginary enemies
by that stnpendous sham the saber-bayonet
But, alacki who ever saw anything like il in
action? Did Gen. Turchin?
j made the assertion in a former article that
bayonets are seldom used in action. Gen. Tur-
chin instances several successful charges of his
own noble brigade, and seems to expect us to
infer that they were successful because Of the
bayonet. Will the General be frank with us
and let us know whether during those charges
the bayonets were on the guns or in their
sheaths? The General does not say that he
ever SAW bayonets crossed, but his thought ap-
pears TO be that every successful charge, or even
advance, is made so by the bayonet. 1t goes
for the saying that this view of the case is
absurd.
At Shiloh there was hard and determined
fighting. The Confederates made many sue
cessful charges and many that were not sue
cessful, but in no case, according 10 my infor-
nation, were bayonets crossed. / will admit
that wounded men were bayoneted in that
battle.
Farther. have never heard Il claimed by
any participants i'm Western battles that bayo-
nets were actually crossed, except at Franklin.
i have seen Il claimed in THE NATIONAL
TRIBUNE that such was the case. Per contra,
i have been told by soldiers who claimed to
have been on that part Of the line where the
enemy came the closest that bayonets were not
used. But let us give the bayonet the benefit
Of the doubt and say il was used. But even
Gen. Turchin. / think, will not contend that
the event of the battle was determined by the
bayonet.
The General says: "The moral impression
Of bayonet charge is irresistible, particularly
when the charged troops are green or unskill-
full in the use of the bayonet." Not at all.
Green troops often retire before bayonet charges
so do veteran troops. On the contrary, green
troops often repulse charges; SO do veteran
troops, and undertake TO say in either case
that the moral impression" which determines
the event does not arise from the bayonet.
More than anything else it is probably due 20
the numbers, discipline and determination OF
the charging troops, unless these advantages
are Offset by advantage of position.
The General says that the Malakof was taken
by assault. Very well. The Prussians tried
TO retake it by assault Very well again. From
all that appears from the Generals own show